A clarification on absolute-claims

My recent posts on finitude was misread in thinking I held that “absolute knowledge” was impossible for humans. That is not what I meant. I was simply following traditional Reformed theology (see Muller) on the theologia unionis:

The Christological problem follows the [epistemological issue]: if the human nature of Jesus, as finite, is in capable in itself of comprehending the infinite knowledge of the theologia archetypa[think of the simple divine mind, admitting no real distinctions], then any equation of the theologia unionis[for our present purpose, think the communication of attributes; BH] with archetypal theology must involve some alteration of the human nature of Jesus. For Jesus to be possessed of an infinite divine wisdom according to his humanity, there would have to be either a communication of divinity to humanity or a transference of divine attributes to Jesus’ humanity within the hypostatic union (Muller, PRRD I: 250]

I wasn’t saying we can’t have absolute knowledge (more on that claim in a moment). I was saying that I don’t have to have a type of certainty which normally isn’t required of finite human beings.

What is truth? If something is true, it is true regardless of whether I “feel” or want it to be true. I think all conservative evangelicals will agree with this. Is the Bible true? Of course. Is it true in all times and in all places? Sure. Is that what truth denotes? (I know there are much larger nuances on the term, but this should suffice) If that is what truth is, then what is gained by adding the modifier “absolute” to the noun “truth?”